I read Evaluating Evidence of Psychological Adaption and I thought that it did a fine job of explaining what evolutionary psychology is and explaining how evolutionary psychologists are legitimate scientists just like ordinary psychologists. I felt that the authors of the article feel as if they need to legitimize their discipline by explaining how the conclusions reached by evolutionary psychologists are indeed rooted in some kind of academic integrity and teased out through the scientific method. Maybe my criticism is that I am less apologetic in my writing or I am just so impressed by the connection of evolution to psychology that I think it is perfectly legitimate.
I generally liked the short anecdotal evidence that the authors used to display how evolutionary psychology is conducted, and I find that the connections the authors made of how some behaviors provide adaption are compelling. But, I can see how evolutionary psychology looks at behaviors across cultures and can conclude that some behaviors are universal and motivated by some kind of evolutionary advantage, but I wonder what evolutionary psychology can do that distinguishes behavior that is coincidentally shared across culture from what is actually rooted in evolution.
How do we differentiate between an adaption and a by-product if it could be both? For example, a nose could be an adaption that evolved to help us breathe easier. However, it could also be a by-product to help hold up glasses. Although with this example it is clear that it is an adaption more so than a by-product since noses existed way before the invention of glasses, what about those that happened to appear at the same time?
The middle-level evolutionary theories and corresponding hypothesis seem to accurately reflect the traditional couple. How applicable are these theories regarding mate selection for individuals who arent what we perceive to be the traditional norm, like couples where the woman is the breadwinner, or gay and lesbian couples? Are there perhaps other theories that govern mate selection for these various groups?
After talking about the credibility of evolutionary psychology I was curious if critics would find a hypothesis based on a top down or bottom up approach to be better. Would they be more likely to give credit to an evolutionary psychology hypothesis if an idea comes from a top down approach (based on an existing evolutionary psychology theory) or bottom up approach (based on an observation)? Or does the method for finding the hypothesis not matter in regards to this?
I found the topic of learning, culture, and evolved psychological mechanisms intriguing. Buss states that the labels "learned" and "evolved" do not represent competing theories. Instead, Buss states that learning mechanisms evolve in humans as a result of the environment. This seems like a sound argument to me.
I know that in class on Tuesday, students debated that behaviors are culturally learned and not the result of evolution. However, these culturally learned behaviors must have started somewhere. I'd like to reference Buss' example of evolved avoidance of incest. It is possible that people began to see the defects to children that were the product of incest, which taught people to avoid incest. People witnessed biological effects, which caused them to evolve their learning mechanisms to avoid incest. Now, even those who do not know the effect that incest can have on a child are repulsed by the idea of engaging in incest.
We all have schemas and behaviors that stem from the collaboration of our cultures and evolution.
I'd also like to add onto Roxanne's questions with my own:
For a top-down method of performing EP experiments, how do researchers prevent false correlations "derived" from research? It seems like proving a theory from beginning to end requires many more resources than I had previously imagined, which makes me think that to some extent, researchers may be trying to find any association between two variables to quickly establish new concepts. I understand that research is always critically evaluated by other members in the field as well as spot-on statistical analyses. In addition, this is probably one of the biggest no-no's in any form of research. Would this change if more people used the bottom-up method?
I was really interested in hypothesis formation using top down vs bottom up. I want to know which method is more commonly used. Do certain people tend to use one method more than the other or are both employed equally?
The book states that there are four classes of adaptive problems, but since the field of evolutionary psychology is so new, might there be more classes that have yet to be described (or that just have't received enough support to be widely acknowledged)? For instance, what would explain many psychiatric illnesses; would this be categorized under a problem of survival, or is it something more, and different, and than that?
I was wondering about the difference between adaptations, by-products and noise. In the book's portrayal of these products of evolution, each seem to be separate, unique and fixed entities. But given enough time and cooperative environmental pressures, could a mutation that was considered noise in one generation become an adaptation in a later generation? If in the future human society was dominated some technology essential to life that was supported by one's nose, would the by-product of the nose being a convenient place for things to rest upon become an adaptation when people who did not have noses large enough to support this technology were unable to survive? Can adaptations become by-products? Like the vestigial leg bones in whales or human appendixes?
I'm an identical twin, so anytime genetic studies comes into the conversation, I am naturally interested. First off, something was mentioned in class about how siblings oftentimes argue with one another, and children argue with their parents, somewhat due to the differences in genetics. Not all of the genes passed down from each parent individually appears in the children's genome. However, identical twins have identical genes. Is there a reason why some pairs of identical twins are complete enemies, while others get along as if they were literal clones of each other?
In terms of the reading, genetic studies came up again. The reading talked about using twin studies as a way to test some evolutionary hypotheses. I understand why it makes sense to use identical twins in twin studies, because they have the same genes. But for fraternal twins, aren't they similar to ordinary siblings, with the only difference being that they are the same age? Why does it make sense to use fraternal twins as well in twin studies, but not necessarily siblings in general?
The book mentioned about the three products - adaptations, by-products of adaptations, and random effects - that evolutionary process produces. This, for some reason, reminds me of the human appendix, which has lost all its original function through the process of evolution. I'm not sure if my question makes sense but I was wondering, would appendix be considered as a by-product or a random effect? Is it a by-product product because it's connected to the cecum of large intestine, and supposedly had some kind of function in the beginning? Or is it a random effect because it is produced by mutation?
I think it is interesting to consider the top-down vs bottom-up hypothesis strategies. Usually when I think of how hypotheses are formed, I would assume that they usually come from an observation of something, which is then investigated. However, it also seems to make more logical sense to me that you would derive a hypothesis from some pre-existing theory. Is one of the two methods more accepted than the other in evolutionary psychology? Is it even possible for any theory to come about without some sort of observation first?
Despite the fact that the authors of the article are doing their best to show how related EP is to other psychology disciplines, they seem awfully attached to their figure and boxes. Are these boxes wide-spread amongst evolutionary psychologists? If so, are there certain criteria for how many or which specific ones must be filled for the research/topic to be classified as EP? Do certain boxes classify it as other disciplines?
I think due to its former purpose, which I looked up found was to aid in digesting cellulose in plants, it could be seen more as a by-product. It developed with other functional parts, like the belly button and the umbilical cord, so I think that, in addition to its former purpose, makes it more of a by-product. Or is it possible that something can shift from an adaptation to a by-product, or a by-product to noise?
Like Jennifer I'm also interested in our conversation Tuesday about twins and genetics because i am a fraternal twin. I don't believe that using fraternal twins in studies Is any different from using siblings.
In addition, I'm still curious about our conversation about giving up your spouse for your children or siblings. (Like in the movies) Suppose their is a complication during child birth and a father had to pick between their spouse and child who would they pick?
The middle-level evolutionary theories and corresponding hypothesis seem to accurately reflect the traditional couple. How applicable are these theories regarding mate selection for individuals who arent what we perceive to be the traditional norm, like couples where the woman is the breadwinner, or gay and lesbian couples? Are there perhaps other theories that govern mate selection for these various groups?
This question reminded me of something that I was thinking a lot about, which was whether changes in societal roles (more dominant women, homosexual relationships) would have an effect say, hundreds and thousands of years from now on evolutionary psychology, or if the genetics we inherited from the stone age will remain as the driving force in human nature. I realized we talked about how culture and society do not have much of an impact on EP, but the overwhelming changes in societal roles makes me think otherwise.
I actually had a very similar thought to Roxanne and Ashley's. When reading about top-down vs bottom-up, I couldn't help but think about all the warnings I have heard concerning looking through data and trying to come up with explanations for what is going on rather than arranging an experiment carefully to test for something very specific. This advice seems relevant here. The book did a great job of describing the merits of the bottom up strategy, but I feel that there is a lot of potential for it to be abused. This is why I considered the question (similar to one posed above): does one method earn more respect in the scientific community?
Reading about the "nomological network of evidence" stuff and particularly the analysis of Profet's studies on pregnancy sickness illuminated the source of the hesitation I've felt about getting involved in psychology research. The way the Profet story was presented, the evolutionary psychologist aggregates the results of a slew of narrow-scope studies from the eight other disciplines on the chart and ties them together to make a definitive and significant conclusion about a major element of the human condition. I don't mean to discredit the other disciplines, but it seems like synthesizing lower-level research from all the areas of psychology would lead to a much more comprehensive, holistic understanding of whatever you're studying. And since evolution is virtually proven, I guess it makes a lot of sense to start investigations from that perspective.
